I debate the notion that the Craig Era is in line with the traditional Bond films we saw from 1962-2002.
Going back to the question, what is a traditional BOnd film? To many people the traditional Bond film ended in 1969. RM in say MR, was totally against the type established by Sean Connery in 1962. There is much more in common in the way Bond is portrayed with Craig and a young Connery than there was with a young Connery and an older Roger Moore. The biggest difference with Craig as Bond compared to the other that came before him is that he is the first Bond to be too young to be an agent during the cold war. I think that may have been part of the desire to do a reboot. In 2006 they could not hire a Bond in his 30s and still pretend he was an agent during the cold war, Craig or somebody else, it just could not be done.
Yes, Craig is quite a bit different than Pierce Brosnan or Roger Moore's James Bond, but they were quite a bit different than Sean Connery who was different than Timothy Dalton. Many of the James Bonds have been "against type" from who had played him before.
Hi Jaguar, I am going to try to address the points you made in your post prior to your latest one in this response.
The traditional James Bond comes from the formula developed by EON during the 1960's. This formula was developed during the productions of Dr. No
and From Russia with Love
and perfected in Goldfinger
What separates Goldfinger
from the first two is that it completely embraces the preposterous world of James Bond. It's preposterous to believe that one is able to keep a perfectly pressed tuxedo underneath a wetsuit. It's preposterous to think that criminal would try to invade Fort Knox. It's preposterous to think that you can throw a brick at someone's chest and have it not hurt them.
The whole idea of a Mi6 agent going around the world telling everybody his real name is just ridiculous. The entire concept of James Bond is completely ridiculous, yet it is very entertaining, and it is very fun.
Bond is at its best when it embraces the preposterous, when it embraces tongue-in-cheek, and when it embraces escapism. Get ready to be shocked. I would be willing to tolerate Daniel Craig, as much as I think he is wrong for the role, if EON had embraced these elements. However they are trying to inject realism into a character that is known for being so unrealistic. That's where I fault them. Goldfinger
is the blueprint that should be followed for each Bond. I am not looking for the same story every time, but I am looking for the elements that remind me that I am watching a Bond film.
Finally, I agree with you that From Russia with Love
have very little in common. That is because From Russia with Love
was made when EON was still developing the formula for the cinematic Bond. I'd argue that Goldfinger
have a lot in common. They both follow the same formula. They first embrace the preposterous nature of Bond. Then they include the elements that are associated with Bond: gun barrel opening, over-the-top plots, almost unconquerable henchmen (that Bond can only defeat by outwitting), very colorful arch-villains set on massive destruction, etc., etc.
Looking forward to your response. Now, off to the "The Saint" thread where you and I have found common ground. I'll see what is going on there.